No abstract

Interoception in the broader sense refers to the perception of internal states, including the perception of the actual state of the internal organs (visceroception) and the motor system (proprioception). Dimensions of interoception include (1) interoceptive accuracy, i.e., the ability to sense internal changes assessed with behavioral tests, (2) confidence rating with respect to perceived performance in an actual behavioral test, and (3) interoceptive sensibility, i.e., the self-reported generalized ability to perceive body changes. The relationship between dimension of cardioceptive and proprioceptive modalities and their association with affect are scarcely studied. In the present study, undergraduate students (N = 105, 53 males, age: 21.0 ± 1.87 years) filled out questionnaires assessing positive and negative affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), interoceptive sensibility (Body Awareness Questionnaire), and body competence (Body Competence Scale of the Body Consciousness Questionnaire). Following this, they completed a behavioral task assessing cardioceptive accuracy (the mental heartbeat tracking task by Schandry) and two tasks assessing proprioceptive accuracy with respect to the tension of arm flexor muscles (weight discrimination task) and the angular position of the elbow joint (joint position reproduction task). Confidence ratings were measured with visual analog scales after the tasks. With the exception of a weak association between cardioceptive accuracy and the respective confidence rating, no associations between and within modalities were found with respect to various dimensions of interoception. Further, the interoceptive dimensions were not associated with state and trait positive and negative affect and perceived body competence. In summary, interoceptive accuracy scores do not substantially contribute to conscious representations of cardioceptive and proprioceptive ability. Within our data, non-pathological affective states (PANAS) are not associated with the major dimensions of interoception for the cardiac and proprioceptive modalities.

There are a number of questionnaires assessing the self-reported trait-like aspect of interoception, also called interoceptive sensibility (ISb). Based on the varying purposes of their development and characteristics, however, it is not likely that they assess exactly the same construct. In a community sample of 265 adults, we examined this assumption for three commonly used questionnaires of ISb, namely the Body Awareness subscale of the Body Perception Questionnaire (BPQ-BA), the Body Awareness Questionnaire (BAQ), and the eight subscales of Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). We investigated their associations, and their relation to positive and negative affect and somatosensory amplification. According to the results of correlation analysis, BPQ-BA, BAQ and MAIA were partly unrelated to each other, partly showed weak to moderate positive associations. Also, differences with respect to their association with positive and negative affect were found. These findings suggest that the investigated questionnaires cannot be used interchangeably to assess the subjective aspect of interoception, and the term ISb is not appropriately defined.

No abstract

Our aim was to conceptually replicate the findings of previous empirical studies showing that people with higher cardiac interoceptive accuracy experience more intense emotions. Apart of the mental heartbeat tracking task of Schandry, Hungarian (n = 46, 76.0% female, mean age 22.28 ± 2.228) and Norwegian (n = 50, 60.0% female, mean age 24.66 ± 3.048) participants rated the arousal and valence evoked by positive, neutral and negative pictures. Multivariate repeated analysis of variance (applying both frequentist and Bayesian approaches) did not reveal any connection between heartbeat perception scores and the subjective ratings (i.e., arousal and valence) of the pictures in any of the two groups. The lack of the expected association between cardioceptive accuracy and arousal might partly be explained by the methodological differences between previous studies and this one; for example, we did not split or preselected the sample based on the performance on the Schandry task and applied a relatively strict instruction (i.e., by encouraging to count felt heartbeats only, and to report zero if no sensations were detected).